Article taken from the Westcountry Farmer
This is one question being address in this year’s national Agrovista trials programme.
Whilst of academic interest, results from wind tunnels are not a reliable indication of how a nozzle will perform in the field; and comparisons in small plot trials bear little resemblance to how products are applied on farm. Nozzle choice, settings and boom height are being investigated in the fully replicated application trials using bespoke application machinery.
We are evaluating drift reducing technologies; as well as application aids which improve the performance of products applied using drift reducing nozzles.
The work takes on increasing significance with the introduction of drift reduction technology into the registration process for crop protection products (to protect surface water).
This means that for some products the label will specify the use of three star drift reduction technology as a statutory condition of use; with additional buffer-zone restrictions where products are applied close to water. We have seen that drift can have a significant impact on the performance of herbicide of fungicides in cereals. We have also seen that there can be a significant reduction in performance and yield when products are applied with air inclusion nozzles or with some products which claim to reduce drift.
A few examples of the importance of correct nozzle choice and value of application aids from previous years trials: In the trial below 12 nozzle/boom height combinations were tested with a flufenacet based pre-emergence herbicide (the trial was oversprayed with a mesosulfuron based herbicide.
Final weed control ranges from 75 to 94% showing the importance of correct nozzle choice and boom height.
Adding Grounded as an application aid improved control by an average 10%.
Some drift reducing adjuvants are very effective at reducing drift – for instance Companion Gold (commonly used with glyphosate) gives equivalent drift reduction to a three-star rated nozzle – and proven in the Silsoe LERAP nozzle test.
This is one question being address in this year’s national Agrovista trials programme.
Whilst of academic interest, results from wind tunnels are not a reliable indication of how a nozzle will perform in the field; and comparisons in small plot trials bear little resemblance to how products are applied on farm. Nozzle choice, settings and boom height are being investigated in the fully replicated application trials using bespoke application machinery.
We are evaluating drift reducing technologies; as well as application aids which improve the performance of products applied using drift reducing nozzles.
The work takes on increasing significance with the introduction of drift reduction technology into the registration process for crop protection products (to protect surface water).
This means that for some products the label will specify the use of three star drift reduction technology as a statutory condition of use; with additional buffer-zone restrictions where products are applied close to water. We have seen that drift can have a significant impact on the performance of herbicide of fungicides in cereals. We have also seen that there can be a significant reduction in performance and yield when products are applied with air inclusion nozzles or with some products which claim to reduce drift.
A few examples of the importance of correct nozzle choice and value of application aids from previous years trials: In the trial below 12 nozzle/boom height combinations were tested with a flufenacet based pre-emergence herbicide (the trial was oversprayed with a mesosulfuron based herbicide.
Final weed control ranges from 75 to 94% showing the importance of correct nozzle choice and boom height.
Adding Grounded as an application aid improved control by an average 10%.
Some drift reducing adjuvants are very effective at reducing drift – for instance Companion Gold (commonly used with glyphosate) gives equivalent drift reduction to a three-star rated nozzle – and proven in the Silsoe LERAP nozzle test.